Not all obligatory control is movement

(with Fyodor Baykov) “Not all obligatory control is movement.” Journal of Linguistics 56(4): 893–906.

doi:10.1017/S0022226720000237

 download pdf

This paper presents two challenges for the analysis of promise-type verbs within the Movement Theory of Control. We show that the objects of these verbs in Russian are not prepositional and are incorrectly predicted to be legitimate controllers. We also argue, based on the patterns of polarity licensing, scope licensing and case marking on floating quantifiers, against analysing oblique control as sidewards movement.

If you like this, or have a question or a comment, then please  share or reply on Twitter, or  email me.

← Case marking in Russian eventive nominalisations revisited | Writing Archive | Agreeing adpositions in Avar and the directionality of valuation debate →

about

I’m Pavel Rudnev, and this is my personal website. I’m a research fellow and lecturer in linguistics at HSE University in Moscow. My main area of interest is syntax and its interfaces with sound and meaning. In particular, my current research revolves around the structure of nominal expressions, agreement, case and verbal morphosyntax in East Caucasian languages, and the syntax-to-phonology mapping in Russian Sign Language.

elsewhere

subscribe

To receive updates from this site, you can follow me on Twitter at  @pavelrudnev, where I’ll update you if anything is posted.

search